The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside an order that had imposed a Rs 202 crore penalty on the US e-commerce giant.

NEW DELHI, May 27 : In a relief to Amazon, the Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside an order that had imposed a Rs 202 crore penalty on the US e-commerce giant and suspended its deal with Future Coupons Pvt Ltd. The apex court allowed the appeal filed by Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, a direct subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc, challenging a June 13, 2022 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The NCLAT had rejected Amazon’s appeal against an anti-trust suspension of its investment deal with Future Group, saying the retailer had not made full disclosures at the time of seeking approval. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also set aside the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) December 17, 2021 order which had levied the penalty on Amazon and suspended its deal with Future. “The impugned judgment dated June 13, 2022 passed by the NCLAT and the order dated December 17, 2021 passed by the CCI are set aside,” the bench said. The top court said if any amount was deposited or recovered from Amazon pursuant to these orders, the same be refunded within eight weeks. It said the CCI’s authority is “statutory” and its actions must satisfy the minimum standards of legality, fairness and reasoned decision-making that apply to all public authorities. “These standards are not technicalities. They are the basis on which regulatory legitimacy is maintained, compliance is encouraged, and market participants can plan their affairs with confidence,” the bench said. It said economic regulation operates not only through prohibitions and penalties, but also through certainty and predictability. The bench said a predictable and rule-bound regulatory environment strengthens confidence in the legal system and fosters compliance. “It also ensures that domestic market participants do not gain from unfair practices merely because another participant is foreign or because the transaction has a cross-border dimension,” it said. It noted that importance of a stable and fair regulatory framework is heightened in the present global economic climate. “In an era where trade and investment flows are often influenced by tariffs, counter-tariffs, supply-chain realignments, and heightened geopolitical and market uncertainty, jurisdictions are increasingly assessed by the credibility of their institutions and the predictability of their regulatory systems,” the bench said. It said a regulator that acts within law, with fairness and reasoned consistency, reduces the risk premium associated with investment and strengthens market confidence. “Foreign investment, in this sense, is not an extraneous concern. It is one of the channels through which capital, technology, managerial expertise, and efficiencies enter markets,” it said. The bench said a fair and rule-bound regulatory environment therefore serves the national interest. It said fair treatment of foreign investors does not mean special treatment. “It means equal treatment under the same law, administered through the same procedural safeguards and disciplined reasoning. Protecting the domestic market does not mean protecting domestic players,” the bench said. “It means protecting the competitive process and consumer welfare, and ensuring that no participant, domestic or foreign, can distort competition through unfair practices,” it said. The bench noted that Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen has also reminded us that global economic integration is neither new nor inherently one-sided, and that the central question is whether its gains are shared in a fair and inclusive manner. It said when cross-border investment and trade are shaped by tariffs, counter-tariffs, and supply-chain realignments, a predictable and fair regulatory system reduces uncertainty and supports competition through entry, scale and innovation. The bench noted that the NCLAT had affirmed, in substantial part, the order passed by the CCI in proceedings initiated against Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC under the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002. The tribunal had supported the CCI findings that Amazon didn’t make full disclosures regarding the deal with Future Retail subsidiary — Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL). The competition watchdog had on December 17, 2021, levied the penalty on Amazon and suspended its deal with Future, stating that the US firm deliberately suppressed the actual scope and purpose of the 2019 investment and made false and incorrect statements. Amazon had challenged the decision, arguing that it had not concealed any information. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC had in 2019 acquired 49 per cent shareholding in FCPL, which in turn held 9.82 per cent interest in Future Retail Ltd (FRL). Citing its indirect shareholding in FRL, Amazon had opposed the sale of its retail assets to Reliance Industries for Rs 24,713 crore. The CCI order had stated that Amazon had not disclosed its interest in FRL while seeking approval for its investment in FCPL. (PTI)

China's wholesale prices rose at the fastest pace in nearly four years in May.

Trump Media & Technology Group (DJT) has drawn fresh attention after recent share price swings.

On June 9, 2026, the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite plunged 2.17%, losing more than 560 points as AI and semiconductor stocks extended their sell-off.